New Age Atheism: The New Frontier of Scientific Ideology

There is criteria which one should follow in order to be a neoatheist:

*Understanding science, religion, supernatural and atheism
~Science is trying to figure out what is true through methods of logic and rationality, while religion does the same thing but through dogmas and old scriptures.
~Supernatural is the silly notion things cannot be explained by science but religion, and sometimes pseudoscience (which is fake science).
~Atheism is the lack of belief in deities
~Religions are the enemy. Buddhism gets a pass because they are hardly a religion - more of a philosophy.

*Make sure to know proper arguments to distinguish atheism from religion:
~"So by the lack of belief in God, I have a belief? So my lack of belief in Santa Claus is "Aclausian?"
~"Is being bold, a hairstyle?"
~"The television being off, a channel?"

*Check out Dawkins, Rosenberg, Dennet and Harris:
~These guys pave the way for what it is be a rational, logical and non-dogmatic person.
~They demonstrate how belief in a God is just nonsensical through science!
~They prove logic is EVERYTHING to how to think properly.

*Being militant does not mean physical actions
~Only extremist harm others for their beliefs, and since we have none there is no need for violence.
~Never allow 'faith' to be an acceptable reason for the other person to avoid an argument.
~Don't be afraid to debate, you are right! Religion is a destructive practice!
~The burden of proof is on those who claim truth!

Always keep in mind something a leader of our movement had to say, which proves powerful:

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
-Christopher Hitchens

Let's how a strong discussion here on what it REALLY means to be the neoatheist everyone should be!

As an active blogger and forum user to discuss new age atheism, there are a couple of websites I can share. Once a week we have a podcast for lectures with live commenting! Join in the movement!

Feb 2 2013:
I, like some others below, am confused from your explanation as to what New Age Atheism is. Do I understand that it is a sort of evangelical effort or campaign to use science to disprove the existence of any diety rather than assuming, as most trained scientists do, that science cannot prove or disprove beliefs in that area? And that there is a set of particular arguments you are coached to use with people?

As you mention pseudoscience, it sounds like the movement also doesn't go for for invalid extrapolations of real science to justify all sorts of stuff? (But then, followers never think their extrapolations are not scientifically valid, so I guess that's a tough one to pin down).

Mormons were disorganized for the longest time, a cult, yet through massive numbers of members became a recognized religious practice. Scientology, no different.

By your definition of religion, indeed the neoatheist movement is not a religious movement.

But your definition of religion cuts out a lot of organized religions that exist today. Since there are atheist (or secular) Jews, Christians, Muslims. Buddhism, Hinduism sects, and the subreligious groups which are inspired by the two religions, exist. No superhuman beliefs, but, in fact very organized.

If anything, part of the neoatheist movement (the one you seem to have been submitted to) has gone about changing the definitions and ideas of religion to satisfy argument.

You're saying religion is all about a higher power - which it's not. Your impressions of religion have became that, no doubt due to the strong Christian image developed in the media today.

Today, when I think 'atheist' I don't actually think of anything universal or global in terms of what that group of people are rejecting, I think they are just rejecting the Judea-God and have labeled anything relative, religious.

In short, no. In fact I am trying to keep my definition as open as possible, and by doing so - recognize how neoatheist are no doubt, moving towards a unified, organized culture and community - which already exist, but not very 'organized'.

I assume by your response, you are a new age atheist? Maybe even on to label themselves 'agnostic-atheist' in order to accommodate the .01 percent chance the Judea-God exist? Fine.

Yet, there is this itching feeling that comes to me, when people place themselves into a debate about a creator God; discussing metaphysical ideologies. Strikingly similar to a religious debate. Not a religion? Yet have a say?

Feb 7 2013:
Kierkegaard had it right in my opinion, he said religion was a personal thing. And, that idea holds true or else the [cognitive] psychology of religion would not have much to study at all.

The word 'atheism' itself is not a religion, but the movement definitely takes on the form of a disorganized religious practice, most definitely. The culture just naively labels themselves atheist. Rather they should label themselves - secular humanist or religious naturalist.

What makes neoatheist so rejecting of the phrase 'religion' is because that is what they believe is be the enemy... Which is obviously ignorant once we start traveling East. The Middle East is painted to be this place of dark and evilness due to the non-separation of state and religion. At times (like women rights) that may seem very true, but, women rights is also one of the biggest types of protest in those countries... In time, things correct themselves, with understanding. Any type of forceful thinking is a negative. Which is why atheist feel so correct, because they are being forceful on the opposite side of the spectrum from theist (mainly fundamental Christians).

In totality, atheist, today, are actually gnostic-atheist. As they reject the Judea-God. Had they done real research involving religion, God takes the form in ideas which are various - and with this argument I get the usual "Then why call it God?" Well because that idea was called God way before you were born or any of the people you know or read... So, dismissing the philosophy of God is as barbaric as saying you believe in God and not contemplating what exactly that belief is supposed to mean.

Feb 4 2013:
I consider myself an atheist by consequence. I don't get the "new age" idea as if the original definition of atheism is altering.

I am an atheist as a consequence of being a naturalist. A naturalist sees natural history as a dynamic evolving physical process. That means if a camera was continuously filming from some bluff overlooking some land expanse over geologic time and in turn the film could somehow be rewound and sped up for review, then we would witness the origin of species before our eyes. This concept of natural history best satisfies my sense of curiosity over more artificial man made explanations involving creationism.

Biology and related sciences provided impressive fields of interlocking evidence supporting this world view for the student of such disciplines of knowledge. Not to mention all the other logical reasoning conflicts with the elaborate artificial explanations of how things came to be via some supernatural being.

A movement of younger rebels from religious traditions to adopt a more naturalistic approach in how they view the world is possible. The computer could enable it to happen. Youtube and other features of the computer has made this information easier to understand and more interesting than the typical authoritative classroom learning environment that empathizes the memorizing of elaborate DESCRIPTION at the expense of understanding and discussing the HOWS and WHYS that make the study of the topic a science. Until this practice changes the sciences will continue to lag in US public education because learning only accelerates with an open mind.

Although I don't subscribe to treating atheism as a belief system in itself, much of what you advocate I concur with.

Perhaps you have discovered a more effective methodology for bringing more people back to spaceship earth by using wit. No one can doubt the past masterful human creative instincts to develop numerous mystical stories as to how we come to be despite how beautifully we fit into the evolution of the natural world.

Carry on. You may be onto something and I will take a closer look.

So you are injecting a little humor into a humorless topic, interesting.

Feb 7 2013:
That's a very interesting interpretation, not my real intentional goal lol, I am more of an antagonist than anything.

Like I said, as long as 'atheist' either realize their dogmas or realize their mislabeling (as they are secular humanist or religious naturalist), I see no problems with these beliefs! Only when the denial of such thoughts being 'religious' is when there is a disturbing delusion in the mix. That delusion believing we are above being religious, when in fact we tend to be naturally.

... I guess a word like humility isn't on the agenda here, ...but a lot of young neo-atheists should go do their homework and read some philosophy before they go out demonstrating with their flags and T-shirts and calling themselves "brights" ... as though they know better than all the rest of us. Gods existence has been debated for a few thousand years, and so finally comes the neo-atheists with the right answer.... Smells of arrogance to me.

It's perfectly OK to admit that you don't know ... It might be the first step towards self-knowledge.

Richard Dawkins finally did it. ... I think his self-doubt began to arise in him around the time of Christopher Hitchen's death in Dec. 2011. Death seems to be a rude awakening for human logic.

I am sure by now Dawkins had his ear chewed off with philosophers and theologians alike about being so extreme with his ideologies... Surely by now with all the new age movements of religious thinking he would of changed his perspectives. Just like Harris did!

"... I guess a word like humility isn't on the agenda here, ...but a lot of young neo-atheists should go do their homework and read some philosophy before they go out demonstrating with their flags and T-shirts and calling themselves "brights" ... as though they know better than all the rest of us. Gods existence has been debated for a few thousand years, and so finally comes the neo-atheists with the right answer.... Smells of arrogance to me.'

Exactly - and precisely where this conversation's satire exist. With their irreligious attitudes, they are proving more religious than not...

Dawkins wrote in « The God Delusion » that « There is almost certainly no God ». In the newspaper article you mentioned he stated “On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six, a '6.9' . This means his stand is the same.

“6.9” on seven points scale is the position that would be taken by a scientist towards any imaginary notion that can’t be proved or disproved.

Feb 8 2013:
I guess Dawkins should have called himself an agnostic from the very beginning then... rather than an atheist, as his well established reputation would have it. hmmm .... 6.9 ... sounds like a pretty specific relation to his disbelief. But he does have a shadow of a doubt. .... As most agnostics do in fact admit a small degree of uncertainty, Dawkins too, is then saying, with a liiiiiiiiitle reservation, .... that even though I have aways showed myself in public as THE most self certain, self confident, scientific based, clearest thinking, etc. etc. ..but, I am still not sure... I too must admit that even "I" THE Richard Dawkins cannot say with 100% certainty that God does not exist .... Perhaps Dawkins sees that he too ... just may be a liiiiiittle bit delusional ... or what ? Why suddenly now ( in Feb. 2012) .... Maybe the death of his friend Christopher Hitchens (Desember 2011) has something to do with it. I don't know.
Hitch claimed that he would never turn away from his atheism, not even on his death bed. .. That's a pretty strong statement to make. Was Hitch also a ... 6.9 er .?

I work with dying people. I might know as many as 200 people who have died over the past 9 years... and I'll tell you something... death is something that shakes up your logical thought process. It takes it up by the roots and shakes it around like a rag in the mouth of a dog. Your logical mind tries to fathom the infinite dimension of either being "outside" this physical dimension in another form of existence ... or being extinguished to absolute nothingness. Logic reaches its limits ...

I've got nothing at all against atheists, don't get me wrong. I was also one at a certain point in my life. But "vocalizing it" at every chance, in the media, seems to me to take on a character of "The know it all" as Nicholas satirically presented as his discussion topic on "neo-atheism"

It gives me the exact same feeling as hearing the "christian extremists"
Because it is extremism.

Feb 9 2013:
I appreciate your work with dying people. I also understand now why you stress “death” in your comments even when there is no direct reference to it in the discussion. This affords me the opportunity to reflect further and forward my thesis.

What you mention about how death shakes logic is true and it is medically/clinically well known dying syndrome. Often it is described as the delirium of a dying brain, impaired mentality and the mental confusion of a dying person.

This deterioration of brain functions during the dying process, which sometimes creates delusions and hallucinations, shouldn’t leave drastic psychological impact that affects views of healthy people towards basic existential issues. We build our knowledge on the robust activity of healthy brain and not on images from decaying, dying brain.

Further, if a person is not prepared, cognitively, to view this mental decline as quite natural process of dying brain cells, then he would find himself negatively obsessed with death, that could lead to submission to existential angst or more commonly being trapped in thanatophobia and the primordial, rudimentary fear from death, which in turn interferes as a catalyst for enhancing supernatural fantasies.

Modern scientific knowledge and naturalistic worldview are apt to provide us with the means to liberate ourselves from superstition-based fears that plagued (and plagues) human societies.

Also, it is unwarranted to exploit our incapacity to know many things to adopt metaphysical notions. One needs to comprehend that the mysteries and wonders of this wonderful and complex existence wouldn't be deciphered even in the lifetime of thousand generations. We face an open and unbounded space of enquiry, and we need to accept this as a reality whether we like it or not; it is something beyond our feelings and preferences.

Feb 5 2013:
I do not particularly fancy this "Neo-agnosticism" movement; scientific proof and open, logical reason have had the same end-goal for years then and now. Atheism is Atheism and ought to remain so, at least so far as I can see things. It could be very likely that I am misinterpreting your point though?

Feb 7 2013:
My point is to paint the picture of this movement as being a religious one. Which is not bad, as long as it is recognized as one. This way, organization can allow members to be more accepting of the diverse approaches there are in this world. There are a lot of already existing atheist religious groups (like Buddhism, shocker!). lol.

... lol, I have this joking idea that Scientology gets a good number of members because of the word 'science' in the name... With this thought, people enjoy attaching to ideas which are both self reflecting and communally enhanced.. Embracing who we are and our natures are great! As long we are conscious of the reasons and conditions.

Feb 7 2013:
I don't think your idea about Scientology is unreasonable, though I have not studied the question. There are other popular belief communities that have found that selling their belief package as science is a very effective vehicle for getting supporters. Their outreach combines real scientific results with pseudoscientific additions that serve the purpose of the organization.

I now understand that your thread opening was satire. What makes me uncomfortable about that approach, to represent a belief system AS IF you are a member and perhaps incorrectly, is that it potentially stirs up antagonism from those who believe you have correctly described the movement.

It's a bit like spreading a rumor about someone- an exaggeration- and then afterwards saying "Only kidding!"

I am not a neoatheist and had not heard of it until you raised this. I would have this concern regardless of the belief system you described.

Feb 7 2013:
Well the satiric demonstration comes in the notion that atheist would not recognize their organization because if they did, they would be more like what they oppose.

In fact a TED admin suggested the conversation would not be good as provoking others is a path for negative discussion. But, I enjoy taboo thinking. And I believe the new age atheist are in the first step to making a new religion, one that may be beneficial to the world. But, only if they realize their efforts are driving towards unity of thoughts - which is religion.

If, at the point, I have described their beliefs accurately, that should be more evidence to them 1. they are indeed dogmatic and 2. they should organize into larger groups.

Feb 1 2013:
Neo-Atheism? Is that organized blind crusading Nik? similar to modern American politicians during electioneering? Emotionally driven while maintaining a facade of indifference and if backed into a corner has 25 well rehearsed rejoinders.

There is an emotional element with some Atheists i know, too close to the blind acolyte and when i've tried to point this out that they are starting to mimic crazy evangelists they don't see where i'm coming from and as usual i've completely wrecked any further communication with them.One of my countrymen who i respect and have had great conversations with and is an avid atheist said once "It's all about position" He's right.

The thing with replacing all faith and the belief that there is always something beyond the horizon is what are you going to fill the void with? Even logic is constrained by itself and can lead to the abandonment of further investigation into phenomena that is perceived to be too circumstantial.

Is the Neo Atheist the spiritual atheist of this centuries early 2000's? or is it a Super Pac in disguise.

Feb 7 2013:
I was wondering if you were being satirical or there was a new something out there. I can't believe TED suggested this as being tabooish, there are only the usual ghosts here and most of us know the usual response we pass to each other. I tried challenging the latest religion to sweep the world and was moderated and was very surprised by the level of emotional response and indoctrinational propagandist ideology used by these blind knights. You can't call someone bisexual anymore. Quite strange, when the world gets to this level of PC like Britain run for the hills.

I can't say that atheists should adopt the word religion but maybe they should go amongst the FN nations to find that special something without the word religion being involved, they are just now rousing from a long slumber.

I know that there are atheists (those who do not believe in a deity) and anti-theists (those who are against all theists - primarily those of the Abrahamic traditions - whether the anti-theist is atheist or agnostic). But I do not know what a neoatheist is.

An explanation would be helpful. Is neoatheism referring to the spiritual (intuitively accessed) realm/dimension that quantum mechanics is showing exists (another unseen dimension or the possibility of other inferred unseen dimensions) that is part of our being? (Or might be if the many worlds theory is correct.)

there are two trains of thought I have when I use the phrase "neoatheism"

1. A new age religious movement (who arrogantly call themselves a category of religion; atheism)
2. A paradigm. As MANY scientist today (in response to creationist) pay careful attention to being militant against gnostic beliefs.

Neo - new

New age atheism is neoatheism. In a sense, it is not very 'new' but the process of calling the culture of thought / new age religion "atheism" is recent in time.

So a neoatheist is one who flaunts his atheism (or 'agnostic-atheism'), overstates metaphysical concepts like 'religion' 'supernatural' 'science' and 'dogma', patterned arguments (see list above), idols, forums, blogs, and more. Basically a religious person, without the organized part of going on Sundays and having picnics. Although recently I became aware of Atheist Plus http://atheismplus.com/ and how they are actually trying organize more.

Lastly to respond more directly:

" Is neoatheism referring to the spiritual (intuitively accessed) realm/dimension that quantum mechanics is showing exists (another unseen dimension or the possibility of other inferred unseen dimensions) that is part of our being?"

Spiritual, yes.
But, what it exactly shows, to me, is religious behavior is natural to human beings. As far as what they want to believe in... is up to the religious organization between the individual and the groups.

And whatever it is westerns decide to dictate in quantum mechanics outside of mathematics, is holistic philosophy... We just took a very long time and tedious method in order to question what Easterners have been questioning thousands of years with their religions and philosophies.

Feb 1 2013:
I fail to see how Atheism is any more or less scientific than any other belief system. I became a Christian in middle age by looking at the science; my choice, others chose otherwise. Let's get to brass tacks ..

I live my life in the expectation of eternal life. This motivates me to emulate my God in Jesus Christ. He spent his time on earth loving & caring for people. I do likewise. If I am wrong, & I pass to oblivion, what does it matter ? I am none the wiser; but my life is lived in the expectation.

You believe this life is all there is; an altogether miserable prospect in my eyes. You have to cram everything into this life. Whether this includes helping others is down to the individual & arbitrary. If you are wrong, you are in trouble.

Feb 2 2013:
Yes, it is a miserable prospect, but whether or not a person is afraid to die shouldn't affect their beliefs. Nor should a fear of being damned to eternal hell. In no way do i direct this at you, because I'm sure you have your own very valid reasons for belief, but if somebody consciously decides to become religious for either of those reasons, then they are compromising their principles in a way that i actually find quite cowardly. In fact, I believe that if there was an omniscient god, and he could truly see into the hearts of men, then he would rather accept into heaven those who may not worship him, but regardless, live their lives in a more respectable manner.

Also, if you need help differentiating between theism and atheism:

From what I can tell, it sounds like you see Atheism as a choice - a belief that there is no god. However Atheism is as much a belief as the belief that there is no flying spaghetti monster. it does not make a leap of faith, but rather refuses to make any leap at all, and refutes all statements that require such a leap. In a way, refuting those statements absolutely is a leap in itself, but can you see the subtle difference?

Finally, I rebuke your final question, and although I am not atheist myself, I find it offensive. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Atheists live by the same moral code as everybody else - a code remarkably similar to that taught by Jesus Christ.

Feb 3 2013:
Hi Jonnie,
Last point first. Human beings are all equipped with a conscience by their creator. As that creator IS Jesus Christ, it should come as no surprise that the teachings are similar.

I admit that I see Atheism as a choice to reject the notion of a creator god. Looking around at the high tech nano technology that underpins the whole of nature, it seems obvious that a creative intelligence is a possibility. The rejection of this perfectly valid notion is what I see as Atheism. Even Dawkins admits to the possibility, but admits that the Spaggetti Monster is a figment of his imagination.

Feb 3 2013:
You make it sound like we are all equipped with the same conscience, and that our actions for good or evil are merely choices on whether to follow that conscience or not. Do you believe then that the human race has grown less evil over the last 200 years since the abolishment of slavery, then racism and sexism? Because I don't believe that the people that lived back then felt the same pang of guilt as we would do now.

The teleological argument is indeed attractive. I won't debate the existence of God with you, but I will say that for an atheist, especially one who is well versed in the natural sciences, the development of nature through evolution is equally obvious and they see no reason to make a faithful leap when there is a perfectly valid explanation already.

Feb 4 2013:
Hi Jonnie,
I believe man has always had the same conscience. We can harden parts or all of it by going against it. No doubt the slave traders managed it, the Nazis managed it, the communists managed it, & the suicide bombers manage it. We are not any more or less evil than our forebears, we are just different.
Nero had his choices to make, as did the 911 bombers.

Evolution & ID are two different solutions to the origins problem. To the Christian the ID leap of faith is smaller, to the Atheist the Evolution route requires the smaller leap. However both are faith based, as neither can be empirically tested. It's probably healthy that life has a bit of mystery left.

Your beliefs are shockingly Judaic and Buddhistic. Have you ever read or learned anything from these practices?

Do you feel as if it is possible an alien race made us, do you believe an alien race exist which is a thousand years more advanced and able to do such? Would they have created the mechanism in our brains to be aware of God's existence? Or, would they be limited to the knowledge of their own intelligence, and have to duplicate that, which 'that intelligence' having to have the God component?

My guess will be no. The above is not possible to you. That's my assumption.

Yet, through time we have had documentation destroyed and replaced and replaced with replacements. 2000 years is a long time. However, for over 200 years we have had thinkers and scientist alike - understand how microevolution predicts a macroevolution. The evidence of change, theorized with, creates larger theories about already found evidence.

I am not doubting God, in fact I enjoy expanding the idea. However, evolution is a fact. If God, in your image or any other image, exist, that does not defeat evolution, that defeats fundamental biblical readings.

God would then be an Architect. Designing our DNA to adapt and evolve through time and space. Yet, we were evolutionarily lucky enough to get consciousness. Perhaps all animals believe in God, in some primitive fashion. The strive to survive, is something we cannot say no animal has. Maybe God is survival. Or, Xe was super-intelligent enough to design life with the mechanisms necessary to survive.

Perhaps at different levels of consciousness we are doomed to behaving more proper, or divine - in an objective sense. I can see that.

Feb 10 2013:
Hi Nicholas,
You assume correctly regarding aliens. Their existence would only beg the question of where they came from. I am intrigued that you (& Dawkins) should consider the possibility. On the one hand you state that evolution is a 'fact' & that no god figure is required, but entertain a superior intelligence just so long as it isn't 'God'. If Aliens are a possibility, then why not god?
However if evolution, in the Darwinian sense is a 'fact' of nature then there is no need of god. I do not see evolution as a fact in any but the micro sense; variation within kinds. This can be observed, but there is no reason to believe it can grow to macro proportions.
Neither is there any evidence to encourage the abiogenesis theory; without which, evolution is dead in the water.
Human beings are fairly smart; not as smart as they think they are; but fairly smart. We can get fairly close up & personal with the awesome nano-engineering in nature. We know our limits with regular engineering in the real world, we are light years behind what we observe in nature. Our limits are forgivable, we are not that smart. However we really let ourselves down when we proudly declare that this awesome technology assembled itself over millions of years by blind chance. The fact that our seats of learning & the media have been beating this drum for decades is unfortunate. Many follow the piper, but in reality the emperor has no clothes.